MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115148357 · doi:10.1353/cjs.2005.0035

Asymmetrical Hybridities: Youths at Francophone Games in Canada

2005· article· en· W2115148357 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christine Dallaire, Claude Denis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrenchHybridityIdentity (music)SociologyContext (archaeology)Meaning (existential)EthnographyGender studiesLinguisticsAnthropologyAestheticsEpistemologyHistoryArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this ethnographic comparative study of the Jeux de l'Acadie, the Jeux franco-ontariens and the Alberta Francophone Games is to explore further how minority youth identities are produced and manifested in Canada's francophonies. Through interviews, drawings and questionnaires adolescents express and give meaning to their francophoneness in the context of the Games. The analysis reveals that francophone identities are reproduced as a component of hybrid identities. This hybridity refers to youths' integration of once distinct francophone and anglophone cultural identities into a "hybrid" identity. This paper examines the different configurations of these hybrid cultural and linguistic identities, where some youths spontaneously and mostly live in French but insist on their hybridity, while other youths perform predominantly as anglophones but remain attached to their francophoneness. Indeed, Acadian youths primarily perform a singular francophone identity while Franco-Ontarian and Alberta francophone youths manifest a rather complex and asymmetrical mélange of francophoneness and anglophoneness.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0230.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207